For John Kerry to propose at this late stage for "non-terrorist belligerents" to get on-board with the ceasefire is nothing but a cynical ruse.
So what is Washington really seeking? Part of the proposed deal involves Russian and Syrian forces calling off their offensive against eastern Aleppo -- the so-called "lifting of the siege" and supplying "humanitarian aid" to insurgent-held areas.
Cynically, but realistically, those provisions are less about halting violence and humanitarian effort and more about giving the foreign-backed regime-change forces a much needed breathing space. Ever since Russia sent its forces into Syria at the end of last year, the US-led regime-change war has turned into a losing campaign.
What Washington and its other foreign co-conspirators -- Britain, France, Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia -- badly need is to give their proxies a respite from the withering offensive of the Syrian army and its Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
A reasonable conjecture is that the Pentagon and CIA war planners -- Kerry's ultimate bosses -- want a holding and reorganizing position until Hillary Clinton is elected as the new president. Lame-duck Obama has been too much of a ditherer and not sufficiently gung-ho about regime change in Syria.
Clinton, on the other hand, has vowed to step up American military intervention in Syria. She has called for setting up of no-fly zones and a tougher stance towards Assad and Russia.
But if Syrian and Russian forces continue their rate of attrition against the regime-change proxies, there may be little of these foreign assets left by the time Clinton takes office early next year. Hence, the insurgents must be salvaged from their precipitous defeat -- and this is what really pertains to the "ceasefire" that Kerry has appeared so keen to accomplish.
The conjecture of a "holding, reorganizing position" also tallies with the recent invasion by Turkish military forces into northern Syria and the joint US-Turk annexation of territory. It suggests that a greater war effort for regime change is being anticipated for when Clinton takes office. (Assuming Donald Trump's candidacy can be wrecked by the relentless US media vilification he is being subjected to.)
Which begs the question: why have Russia and the Syrian government apparently gone along with this latest ceasefire arrangement? If, that is, it is a cynical ruse for regime change?
Why don't Syria and Russia just drive on with their very effective offensive to defeat the terrorist regime-change front? Perhaps, Syria and Russia have their own calculations for regrouping and refining tactics for resuming even greater offensive power. Or perhaps, Russia knows all too well, privately, that the Americans are full of claptrap.
This latest ceasefire proposal has no chance of working because of the inherent flaws. But Russia's international reputation has little to lose from "giving peace a chance."
So, let Washington's proposal for "separation" of insurgents fail, fail, and fail again, and let the world come to see the utter fallacy and criminality of American policy. The trouble, however, is that more delay gives more leverage to a Clinton presidency and what promises to be a far more warmongering next White House administration.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
